mortypediafandomcom-20200216-history
UMHUC:Neutral point of view
All RuneScape Wiki articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.'' According to Wikipedia founder Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales: "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable. NPOV for example." Explanation of the neutral point of view 'The neutral point of view''' The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates are described, represented, and characterised, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed. 'Bias' NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas. Types of bias include: *Class bias, including bias favouring a "type" of UMHUC character ("Loser", "Popular", "Very Popular") *Commercial bias, such as the promotion of a YouTube video, player gathering, or event. *Sensationalism, which is bias in favour of the exceptional over the ordinary, often leading to Undue Weight. This includes the practice whereby exceptional events may be overemphasised, such as riots, forum black-outs etc. (in some cases) *Bias generated from the players' perception of Jarradversalwcgw, or Mortypedia itself, where two separate parties (supporters and opposers) may POV push their philosophies onto the Wiki. This is similar to the Rants forum. 'A simple formulation' We sometimes give an alternative formulation of the non-bias policy: assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert opinions themselves. There is a difference between facts and opinions. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a place called St. Jarrad is a fact. That Uncle Norty has discontinued his contract is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can. By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing episodes is wrong is a value or opinion. That Jarrad.B is the greatest director of our time. That Jarradversal is fantastic for what they've done. The Mortypedia Wiki is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "Jarrad.B is the great director of our time," we can say, "Most people believe that Jarrad.B is the greatest director of our time," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "Jarrad.B had the most success rate," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority). In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are disagreements about how opinions are best stated; sometimes, it will be necessary to qualify the description of an opinion or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation. But it is not enough, to express the Mortypedia Wiki non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. Situations and handling 'Undue weight' NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on UMHUC doesn't mention praising it over the world, only because a distinct minority of fans have point of views on that). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. The Mortypedia Wiki is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. 'A vital component: good research' Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the A simple formulation section above) are not''Points Of View'' (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to build a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to RuneScape Wiki, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterise a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later. 'Fairness of tone' If we are going to characterise disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organisation — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section. 'Let the facts speak for themselves' A piece of advice is given about Jarrad.B :You won't even need to say he was great. That is why the article on Jarrad Burke, it doesn't say''Jarrad Burke was the greatest director" — we don't need to, many people think this, and it's mentioned (by votings). We just list the facts of his deeds dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary.'' Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position. 'Attributing and substantiating biased statements' Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or''substantiating'' it. For instance, "Uncle Morty is the best killer in the series" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for the Mortypedia Wiki is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "Morty's killstreak has been inspired by many," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true. A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "Uncle Morty has the highest kill rate so far in the TV series." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Morty excels. Common objections and clarifications *Does this apply to Guides? Should we be giving weight to less effective strategies? **In most cases, no. Guides, when well-written, illustrate the best paths to accomplishing something. Notes #'^' "A few things are absolute and non-negotiable. NPOV for example." in statement by Jimbo Wales in November 2003 and reconfirmed by Jimbo Wales in April 2006 in the context of lawsuits. Other resources *Wikipedia NPOV tutorial *List of controversial issues *Words to avoid *Guidelines for controversial articles *Avoid weasel words *WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias *Wikipedia:Criticism *Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality Category:Policies